On 10/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: I couldn't agree more. I can't just assume a blanking is valid if the person doing it provides no reason whatsoever. Mgm

On 19/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: [hand up] I've seen plenty. I've never stumbled across them, but I've seen a good few where after the blankings have been helpfully reverted, I've cleaned up the mess when they emailed us. Pause for a second. Imagine you're entirely unfamiliar with Wikipedia. You see some horrible crap. You figure out you can edit. What do you do? You delete it. Getting new users to spot and understand the edit summary box is a bit of a lucky dip anyway - a new and angry user, somewhat less likely. "That's not the way we do things around here" isn't an automatic ticket to not check if they had a point. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 19/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: To be honest, neither would I. But at the risk of sounding smug, I think you and I have perhaps more clue than most minor-notability people we have articles on... I've certainly seen it happen, done in good faith and with good intentions, enough that I try not to ignore the possibility. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 10/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hopefully you have something around 1.2 KG of greyish white mush between your ears. This mush has the amazing ability of enabling you to read as well as make decisions and a reader who wishes to 'fix' it but is unaware of exactly how they should do so. A lot (most?) of blanking happens as a result of accidents or bad behavior but a non-trivial amount of blanking happens because we have libelous or otherwise bad information. The bot issue is a complex one which we will address over time. We can add heurestics to the bots to identify potential trouble articles and send them to humans for review rather than just autounblanking. But it is ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE for a human to act in a manner which is no more intelligent than a bot. If you are not going to read when you revert a blanking, you should leave the work to a bot which will generally do a better, faster, and more consistent job than you ... a human who is pretending to be a bot. The argument that these users are breaking our rules about blanking is entirely bogus: We allow open editing by anyone, even people who have not read a single rule. If you don't like that, argue to close membership.. don't make excuses for mistakes with the argument that the mistake wouldn't have been made if only some new user was aware of one of our numerous esoteric rules. It would appear that WP:NOT needs a new line: "Wikipedia is not a video game".

On 10/19/06, Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Then you have no business reverting blanked articles... if you are going to do a worse job than the bots, then you should leave it to them. And they did, obviously, because if they hadn't the junk would have stayed up. But that doesn't fix the loss of goodwill that we suffer because of this. It would be a lot easier if the expirenced editor, in this case, did nothing at all. Either a bot which can be trained make better decisions than a person who doesn't read, or a person who did read, would have done a better job.

Hi, I'm a little surprised by this thread. Unless I am not understanding what I am reading, there seems to be actual resistance to the idea that one should read what they are reverting back to. When one reverts, one becomes the latest author/publisher of that article; I suggest that there should be some sense of responsibility for its content. I'd just encourage all of us not to make edits that can result in introducing, or, yes, re-introducing, defamation, nonsense or vandalism into Wikipedia articles. If you really cannot afford the time to read your edit, it probably is better to not make that edit. As Greg Maxwell is pointing out, the bots do at least leave a message on the user's talk page about what to do if they believe that they have been reverted in error. Jkelly

On 20/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: You contradict yourself. If you leave it to the bot, you are assuming it is more intelligent than you are, or, you are just ignoring a problem. Why leave something for a bot, that you could have done on sight. The edit in the first post was a short edit. Do you really really expect everyone to, 1) wait for a bot, which may or may not come, or 2) to read the entirety of every edit which can be comfortably, with a large margin, to be considered vandalism. Bots are not more consistent with their intelligence, they are just plain dumb. Consistency in your context does not mean the intelligent consistency. Peter Ansell

On 20/10/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: I have encountered people who are worried about pages, and rather than blanking, they post messages on the "discussion" page. I know I always listen to those messages, and they are infinitely more informative than a new user blanking a page repeatedly. I still do not see why we should be beaten down because of a mistake which was caused by their lack of communication. As was said before, their should be informative messages before blanking is allowed, so they can see the intelligent options more clearly. Possibly even link directly to the BLP noticeboard, which gets a large volume of traffic and can deal with the sort of things that were so worrying in the single case that has been demonstrated here. Peter Ansell

On 20/10/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: Thats quite reasonable. Did that person actually get banned for their good faith action? Peter Ansell

On 10/19/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote: And it's great when that happens. I know I always And you do no favors when you don't even bother to initiate dialogue if you find someone who seems to have an objection to the article. I still do not see why we Our lack of communication is equally to blame, and it's the responsibility of "longtime respected editors" and "vandal fighters" alike to follow our policies, assume good faith, and find out what the problem is. Instead, what was the reaction? Blind Revert, Blind Revert, Block user - all by the same admin Darwinek - without a single talkpage message or message to the editor in question that I know of. This is the same sort of behavior I was complaining of when I shut down using my admin account. I've stayed talking on email thus far hoping that maybe, having brought these concerns to the list and to Jimbo, something might change. Instead, I'm watching over half of the thread's participants defending what ought to be undeniable, inexcusable behavior (not the reverting or the blocking necessarily, but not bothering to check the article for problems and not bothering to make any effort to contact the user, absolutely). As was said before, their should be informative There should be a lot of things. That still doesn't excuse the behavior by the "respected editor" who didn't do their job properly. Possibly even link directly to the BLP It's not the only case, or the BLP page wouldn't have a line about how oftentimes biography blankings happen because there's something problematic in the article, and I'll thank you and whatsisname to stop throwing the "well this is the only case we have on record" strawman around right now. Parker

On 10/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: Joe random person off the street is not going to be familiar with Wikipedia's process and procedures in any significant way. Even if they happen across an article and click on "edit" for some legitimate reason such as libel. Any experienced editor, particularly admins, should be held to the higher standard of knowing what our policies are, and what proper notifications and efforts are. If anything, perhaps the unregistered account editing should be made a bit more blatantly hand-holding to encourage people who are newbies to do the right thing. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Bryan Derksen wrote: In all fairness, the user who performed the blanking was never asked why they were blanking the article, or told that it wasn't the right thing to be doing. And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick and tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which were all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk page. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Matt R wrote: If by "send a private email to the contact address of last resort" you mean "communicate their reason", well, yeah. Not the most effective method, though; it would have been far better if the person who reverted had left a simple {{blanking}} on their talk page: "Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been [[Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism|vandalised]], please [[Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version|revert]] it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|edit]] the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]] for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!" Which /should/ read a lot more like {{test1a}}, which talks about using the talk page. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Matt R wrote: Perhaps we need to enable one of the JavaScript "Warn if no edit summary" things (I wrote a great one which can nag you up to 3 times) for anons... something like "As an anonymous user, you are required to provide a reason for your changes. Please enter it in the text box below:"... -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 10/19/06, Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: I think we did that when we were haveing problems with the google toolbar. -- geni

On 10/19/06, Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Yes, because every new user can instantly find without any trouble at all every one of our miscellaneous and contradictory policies, procedures, and history on every bit of trivial drama that's ever occurred on Wikipedia, and know exactly what they should be doing and how to go about doing it. You do realize how completely stupid you sound, right? This is a textbook example of watching wikipedians ignore AGF and not bother to communicate with someone. I suggested all new accounts should receive the welcome message planted on the new username's talk page, rather than waiting for another editor to do it and I mean it. For chrissakes, people, we need to give new editors the tools and information and make it EASIER for them to join in. Instead, what do we do? We have a bunch of semi-secret policies and procedures hiding everywhere, we speak in code, half the supposed "policies" are just something some boob with no life came up with in order to justify his powers anyways, our dispute resolution system is a joke, and AGF has been thrown down the shitter in favor of Admins Rule All.

Matt R wrote: If you manage to get through the ranting, Mr. Parker makes one suggestion that probably deserves some consideration. I know it's been suggested before, but is it time for us to somehow automate the process of planting a welcome message on new users' talk page? -Rich Holton

Correct! Assume good faith. If you were wrong, no harm done. If you assume bad Correct! Admins are so entrenched in their elitist jargon and pet policies that Just about. I'd only add that admins also seem to love making up new policies or personal policies on the spot, or assigning harsher punishments for behavior that's one of their pet peeves (even though punishment isn't supposed to be the goal of our blocking ability in the first place), or generally treat the newbs like dirt because they know that the newbs won't know the proper ways to respond and try to report them for it, and even if they do get reported, it'll be hushed up because the admins are "longtime respected users" who are "fighting vandals" and we are "short on admins." We need a welcome bot. Why a bot? The new user creation script could easily just have a segment added to make the welcome message automagically appear on the user's new talk page, and then flag the new account for "new message waiting." Parker

--- Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: *plonk* Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

On 10/19/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: Is there any way you can speed up that process? Jay.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Wagner stated for the record: We can only hope. Until that happy day, keeping hitting delete. - -- Sean Barrett | In America, anyone can be President. sean(a)epoptic.com | That's one of the risks you take.

On 10/19/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote: In this case the article consisted of nothing more than naming the person and where she works and a unsourced rumor about her having an abortion. I'd buy the argument that you read some of a long blanked page and missed the vandalism... (although you should also look at the recent history). But the argument that it's okay for a human to revert without reading at all? ... unacceptable. To me it seems that the tone of your post, "an angry celebrity", really comes off as disrespectful both to the people we write about and to the folks who are dealing with this kinda garbage... Rest assured that no one is working on this subject area because they like merely appeasing people who cry about non-issues. The overwhelming majority of cases which get acted on are serious and materially hurtful attacks and it is not reasonable for you to belittle the matter.

On 10/19/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote: Exactly. Blame is a waste of time... we need improvements. If you're thinking about blame you're thinking about the wrong thing. As I said, it sounded like you were belittling the concern, I'm glad that you've clarified your position. In the future you could avoid causing me to draw such incorrect conclusion by avoiding characterizing our response to a terrible attack on a private person as a response to "an angry celebrity". :)

On 10/19/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm disappointed to have read this entire thread before getting this bit of information. I'd buy the argument that you read some of a long blanked page and Absolutely. If you're going to revert a blanking, you should be damn sure that at least *some* part of the original text was in fact accurate. Anthony

On 10/20/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: So this might not have been a case of what I referred to as "absolutely" "unacceptable", which for some reason you cut out. Here it is: "I'd buy the argument that you read some of a long blanked page and missed the vandalism... (although you should also look at the recent history). But the argument that it's okay for a human to revert without reading at all? ... unacceptable." Anthony